2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

265 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext

(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
April 2, 1993
FREENRG4.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Alain Bealieu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL COMMENT FROM BEARDEN (pertaining to the release of his
paper "The Final Secret for Free Energy", listed on KeelyNet as
FREENRG3.ZIP) :
The present classical CEM model prescribes closed, energy-
conservative type systems. If any electrical device works totally
according to the accepted CEM model, it cannot and will not ever
produce overunity. Simply put, you have excluded any hidden EM
source that is freely replenished, and you have assumed continual
killing of all energy input sources utilized. On the other hand, if
one takes the view that the overunity electrical machines are
possible after all, then __ whether one is consciously aware of it
or not __ one has implied that classical CEM must somehow be
substantially flawed. If it's flawed, then __ being a model __ some
of its primary assumptions (postulates) and/or fundamental
definitions must be in error.
The proper place to go after "free electrical energy" is to
rigorously examine CEM, over and over, until flaws are uncovered
which allow a hidden, freely replenished source of input energy. In
other words, one must find a way to "open" the electrical system to
an in flow of energy from this source, without closing off the
source.
Until one finds such an "extension" of CEM, one has no model or
concept which can reasonably be expected to provide overunity
electrical energy output. Note also that, while the majority of the
EM circuitry of an electrical overunity machine may obey CEM, at
least one section __ where the source is freely tapped and the
excess energy extracted __ must violate CEM.
I have spent many arduous years in this very process, right or
wrong. The bottom line of my search is this: the only verified (by
Whittaker and Ziolkowski) (WZ) "freely replenished river" of EM
energy, that can act as the required "free energy" source for input
to the would-be overunity electrical system, is the potential. But
to understand the potential, completely new definitions are required
for many entities, among them being energy, electrical charge,
electrostatic scalar potential, voltage, etc. The present so-called
"definitions" of these entities in CEM are either non-existent,
entirely wrong, or quite unsatisfactory.
Page 1
So far, the search has uncovered two major ways to tap the
continually-replenished EM energy in the scalar EM potential:
(1) use of the inner WZ internal biwave structure of the potential
as pump waves on/to a nonlinear material (such as the atomic
nucleus), so that the nucleus becomes a pumped phase conjugate
mirror. Then, by normal phase conjugate optical theory, simply
inputting a small signal wave will produce an amplified phase
conjugate replica (PCR) wave emitted from the mirror material,
and this PCR will precisely backtrack the original input signal
wave's path (see the distortion correction theorem) back out of
the nucleus, out of the atom, and into the external circuit.
There, the amplified PCR wave can be "filtered off" and sent to
the external load, to power the load. The Floyd Sweet vacuum
triode works precisely by this mechanism. Note particularly
that Barrett has shown that higher topology EM (such as the
original quaternion EM theory) can accomplish such "optical
functioning" without the use of optical materials.
To do Sweet's vacuum triode type process is thus theoretically
possible with electrical circuitry alone, but one must have
more than the current understanding of CEM, as Barrett pointed
out. In other words, one can "open" any 4-space system by
adding hyperspace (or subspace, if one insists on retaining
Minkowski 4-space). One can thus have a hyperspatial source.
Indeed, Ziolkowski and others have already pointed out that the
WZ type decomposition of the scalar potential is essentially
equivalent to having complex sources.
(2) The second way is to "trap the electron gas electrons" in a
separate collector, feed "current-free potential" to the
collector from a primary battery or other source of potential,
and collect a bunch of excess energy (potential) in the
collector's "penned up free electron 'horses'" waiting to carry
the excess energy to the load and dissipate it there, once they
have been released.
Then, one switches the primary potential source away from the
collector, while the "energy-loaded horses" are still trapped
and straining at the bit, so that no work can be done __ by
those agitated horses when they stampede out of there __ on the
internal resistance of the primary source, to destroy or reduce
it.
In the same switching action, the collector with its "snorting
but still trapped electron horses" is switched across the load
to form a totally separate circuit with it, having nothing at
all to do with the original primary source of potential. Then,
the agitated horses are released, and thunder out through the
load, scattering their riders (excess energy) in all directions
in the load, producing work/heat and powering the load. They
will also charge on around to the reverse side of the
collector, and kill its charge separation (kill its potential)
as well, just as does any ordinary circuit.
The major disadvantage of method 1, as we presently have seen
it done (however, check Barrett's demonstration that Tesla's
patented circuitry is capable of doing it by circuitry alone),
Page 2
is that time-reversed electrical energy is produced. So Method
1 has some serious drawbacks. "Time-reversed energy stuff",
which should stay in the atomic nucleus as Newtonian 3rd law
reactions and 3rd-law energy exchanges, is dragged out.
Unusual effects on biological systems can occur. Antigravity
effects can occur. Other hidden processes in the universes,
that affect the atomic nucleus, can be gated into the external
circuitry, causing disaster. Monopoles can be deposited in the
magnets, causing them to explode like hand grenades. Most of
the new "massive time-reverse energy" phenomenology is still
unknown.
One cannot at this stage of ignorance adequately guarantee
human safety. I presently don't see just how this kind of
energy can pass an Underwriter Laboratories' testing and
certification, until a lot more exhaustive work is done to
understand the new phenomenology.
Method 2, however, yields ordinary, garden-variety, positive-time
electrical energy. The method presented in the paper is my own
discovery. No unusual time-reversed phenomena are involved. It would
appear to be eminently practical to produce and certify power units
based on Method 2. The phenomenology and risks are the same as for
ordinary, time-forward power systems.
Method 2 has another unique characteristic: as a system, all the
subsystems are already in the literature and validated. They have
just not previously been put together in this fashion. So
development of the system really represents an "integration" problem
only, after one first does a little development of a proper
degenerate semiconductor material (DSM).
In other words, one first develops (and tests) the exact doping
materials and percentage, to get a DSM material that is still a good
conductor but has a relaxation time of __ say __ one tenth of a
millisecond. One builds the wires from the battery to the collector
out of this new DSM material. If one uses a capacitor for the
collector, the plates must be made out of the new DSM material, not
out of normal "pure conductor" material.
Then one develops a switcher that switches in one tenth (or less)
the relaxation time of the DSM, or in this case in one hundredth of
a millisecond. That switching time, of course, is easy for any
decent electronic technician or electronic engineer.
One also develops a timing circuit that will
(1) sense the status of the discharge of the collector energy
through the load, and
(2) trigger the switching at the correct times so that a smooth
two-cycle (collect, discharge) process results. Note that
the lengths of cycle one and cycle two are not necessarily
equal at all. One may use multiple collectors/loads
simultaneously, cascaded collectors/loads, etc. Hundreds of
variations are possible and feasible.
It is not possible to do anything with this discovery in a normal
manner. I would dearly like to be economically independent, so I
Page 3
could work full time in my efforts on free energy, antigravity,
extended EM healing, cancer, etc. Many orthodox scientists will also
fiercely resist this upstart notion of "overunity" electrical
machines to the bitter end. When powerful economic interests realize
one has such things for real, one is certainly going to be stopped,
jailed, or killed, or he may just "mysteriously vanish" and never be
seen again.
So I just freely released and distributed my discovery of method 2,
in the paper "The Final Secret of Free Energy". It is deliberately
targeted toward technicians, junior engineers, and educated laymen.
(The principles and definitions raised, however, can be debated to
the nth degree by knowledgeable foundation scientists). The paper
has already been distributed worldwide. Now the principles and
definitions are available to everyone. If they are in error, shortly
that will be proven in spades. If they are correct, that will also
be established shortly.
Anyone who wishes can develop and patent a particular application.
There's no longer any way to stop this information from being
disseminated and utilized. I hope that a flurry of development and
patenting activity will result around the world. Get cheap, clean
electrical energy to everyone. Bring on the electric auto, clean up
the noxious auto exhausts, get rid of giant oil spills, and clean up
the biosphere.
Tom Bearden, March 12, 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4